It needn’t be tigers vs tribals
-Pankaj Sekhsaria
Posted online: Monday, September 11, 2006 at 0000 hrs
Belying the hopes of a number of groups and forest dwelling communities across the country, the monsoon session of Parliament did not see the tabling of the Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Bill 2006. In the weeks leading to the session, debates on the merits and the disadvantages of the bill were heated and acrimonious Much opposition has been expressed on the pages of the Indian Express too.
Jay Mazoomdar (‘It’s a jungle out there,’ IE, June 19) had ripped apart Brinda Karat’s arguments in favour of the bill. G. Ananthkrishnan had reported on the three-month-old report of the National Forest Commission
(‘Forest Commission rips apart tribal bill,’ IE, June 18), while an editorial comment (‘Who benefits?’ IE, June 20) advocated the setting aside of 10,000 sq kms as tribal reserves to preserve their traditional lifestyles
and the promotion of US$ 1000 a night ecotourism to pay for the costs incurred in the relocation of tribal populations from areas protected for wildlife.
The sum of the arguments has been that the tribal bill should be jettisoned,
as it is not in the interest of the protection of forests and wildlife in
the country. Those opposing the tribal bill seem to be equating conservation
with the workings of the Wild Life Protection Act (WLPA). But WLPA can at
best be considered one important constituent of conservation. That WLPA does
not ensure conservation was painfully demonstrated when the tiger
disappeared from Sariska. In other places its implementation has actually
impeded conservation initiatives, pushing the Edible Nest Swiftlet in the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the brink of extinction by preventing
innovative conservation initiatives, by preventing buffalo grazing in the
Bharatpur marshes and allowing undesirable changes in the ecosystem and in
innumerable cases alienating local populations, denying them basic
livelihood rights and creating strong localised anti-conservation
sentiments.
This is not to argue that the WLPA has not helped protect India’s
beleaguered natural wealth and wildlife. It has had spectacular successes.
The problem arises because large sections of the forest bureaucracy and
those supporting wildlife conservation believe that the creation of wildlife
sanctuaries and national parks means that people have to perforce move out.
They now believe that the tribal bill will impede this necessity. Both are
incorrect readings. To begin with the WLPA itself acknowledges that people
have lived and continue to live in forests and protected areas and that they
have rights over land and resources. The tribal bill will only help make the
process of recording and dealing with these rights more rigorous and thereby
more just.
Issue now has also been taken (‘Core of the forest issue,’ Jay Mazoomdar,
IE, August 28) with provisions in the Wildlife Protection Act Amendment Bill
for reinforcing fundamentally just principles like those of no forced
displacement and of a decision-making process that is transparent,
participatory and just. The government figure of forest land under
encroachment is 13.34 lakh hectares. This is less than two per cent forest
area of the country and this is land that will be used for occupation. The
overall impact will be larger if one takes into consideration lands needed
for development projects in the villages and other rights like those over
Non-Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) that are to be granted. Even then, fears
suggesting that apocalypse is waiting round the corner can only be
considered exaggerated. It must also be said, however, that all in not right
with the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) version of the bill that was to
be placed in Parliament.
There is a problem with removing the upper limit of 2.5 hectares of land to
be awarded as there is with the extension of the cut-off date to 2005. If
the idea is to support traditional forest dwellers, the earlier cut-off date
of 1980 would suffice just as well. The present bill also needs to make the
beneficiaries and rights holders responsible for ensuring conservation. This
will also ensure that opportunistic occupation of forest land by vested
interests, as has already reportedly started in Orissa and Maharashtra, will
be prevented.
There is no question about the intent of the bill, but some of the
provisions need to be changed before it is approved. That would be a
fundamental requirement if the twin imperatives of conservation and social
justice are to be met.
The writer is, editor, Protected Area Update, a bimonthly newsletter on
wildlife and wildlife related issues
Publication : IE; Section: Editor; Pg:8; Date:11/9/06
URL : http://www.indianexpress.com